• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.

They aren't "muggling" around. Merely enforcing the constitution. A state cannot make a distinction of gender without showing an important interest in doing so. Anti-equality advocates have failed to provide that interest.
 
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.

Except there's no tangible benefit for anyone to support this. In addition, it appears to be such a fringe position that no search I do can seem to dig up a poll on the number of people who want the Federal government removed from marriage. But while I'm pretty alright at googling, I'm not a wizard so if you can find one I'd like to see it.
 
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.

The right to travel freely between states is likewise "made up" by the supreme court. As is the right to use birth control, and the right to raise one's children. None of those are enumerated in the constitution. Do you want to do away with those, too, and simply hope that no state ever tries to use its general police power to take them from you?

Except there's no tangible benefit for anyone to support this. In addition, it appears to be such a fringe position that no search I do can seem to dig up a poll on the number of people who want the Federal government removed from marriage. But while I'm pretty alright at googling, I'm not a wizard so if you can find one I'd like to see it.

It's pretty much only a position held by those who want to discriminate against gays but are also obsessed with small government. It's a weird attempt to merge those two positions.
 
No, why should the federal government not recognize legal relationships, which is why they are in marriage? They have programs that recognize spouses and rely on this recognition to determine how they deal with certain things, including SS, military benefits, and taxes.

The states don't have any right to have a definition of marriage that treats people differently in whether they can marry or who they can marry based on their religion, race, sex, or other characteristics that they cannot show further a legitimate state interest by basing restrictions on, whether the federal government recognizes marriages or not.

Why should they be involved in the first place. All the federal benefits can revolve, like taxes, around how many people you support. This would actually make those systems far more fair and equal.

As to that last, it's the throw in of "other characteristics" that doesn't work. I like living in a state with no sales tax, so I do. It's one of the wonders of being a union of states. There will be enough states that do license homosexual marriage.
 
The right to travel freely between states is likewise "made up" by the supreme court. As is the right to use birth control, and the right to raise one's children. None of those are enumerated in the constitution. Do you want to do away with those, too, and simply hope that no state ever tries to use its general police power to take them from you?

Actually, no, it's not made up by the SCOTUS. We inherited a good body of law behind the Constitution. And the US Constitution protects INTERSTATE travel and commerce, giving Congress the power to regulate it. However, it's the state constitutions that protect and enshrine freedom of movement within the state.

AND as enumerated in the US Constitution what happens to all those rights not enumerated in the US Constitution? That's right, they fall to the state and the people.
 
They aren't "muggling" around. Merely enforcing the constitution. A state cannot make a distinction of gender without showing an important interest in doing so. Anti-equality advocates have failed to provide that interest.

No, you tried to slide one over. It's not "a distinction of gender" but a distinction of sexual orientation - and that is not a protected class.
 
Actually, no, it's not made up by the SCOTUS. We inherited a good body of law behind the Constitution. And the US Constitution protects INTERSTATE travel and commerce, giving Congress the power to regulate it. However, it's the state constitutions that protect and enshrine freedom of movement within the state.

AND as enumerated in the US Constitution what happens to all those rights not enumerated in the US Constitution? That's right, they fall to the state and the people.

That's an awful lot of words that aren't in the constitution that you're making up. Let's start with "inherited a good body of law". You mean English common law? Are you suggesting that another country's laws are binding in the US? And why would English common law refer to travel between states? England doesn't have states. Meanwhile, the ability by congress to regulate interstate commerce doesn't guarantee anyone the right to anything. Every court case that established protection for rights that aren't listed in the bill of rights came about from a state law stripping people of those rights and the federal government protecting them. Why do you put such blind faith in states? And why is it that the only complaints about supreme court authority is when their actions protect our rights? Don't we want more rights? Don't we want as much liberty as possible without infringing on anyone else's? How can restricting marriage possibly fit that maxim?
 
government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.

True, but they can require it to be an actual contract, properly written, fully detailed including escape clauses, and could stop giving tax and other benefits to married people just because they are married. It isn't impossible to take marriage out of government, and instead force all to have civil contracts that don't involve the government at any level until such time as a contract is broken in an un-contracted means.
 
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."
 
Last edited:
The federal government can indeed stop adding benefits onto state contracts. That is what is being proposed.

weird no where in my post did i talk about adding anything, thanks
 
True, but they can require it to be an actual contract, properly written, fully detailed including escape clauses, and could stop giving tax and other benefits to married people just because they are married. It isn't impossible to take marriage out of government, and instead force all to have civil contracts that don't involve the government at any level until such time as a contract is broken in an un-contracted means.

if its a contract it involves government. Marriage is already a civil contract. Government will be the one protecting it. Without government there is no contract.
if people want to try and tweak the contract thats fine by me go for it but government will always be involved, no way around it. You very own example has the government requirements.
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.

Law, rights, and courts cases all prove you wrong
 
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.

Fed will always be involved in rights and the states already have some grey area to work within as long as they dont infringe on individual rights.
 
They already can do this. It just has to be in accordance with the constitution.

DING DING DING DING
winner winner chicken dinner
 
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."

a meaningless subjective opinion that you you have a right to have, just like they have rights also.
 
True, but they can require it to be an actual contract, properly written, fully detailed including escape clauses, and could stop giving tax and other benefits to married people just because they are married. It isn't impossible to take marriage out of government, and instead force all to have civil contracts that don't involve the government at any level until such time as a contract is broken in an un-contracted means.

I'm just not sure what going to civil contracts accomplishes. What problem are you solving? Are there all these married couples unhappy with the way states and the Feds recognize or don't recognize their marriage? If not it's a solution looking for a problem.

If it's all about NOT recognizing SSM then let's just say that instead of dancing around that with weak states' rights, small government stuff. The marriage 'contract' is an example of government working. Cheap. Easy. Effective. Greases legal and economic wheels. Almost no opposition.
 
No, you tried to slide one over. It's not "a distinction of gender" but a distinction of sexual orientation - and that is not a protected class.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a distinction of gender. Marriage isn't sex, clownboy. The anti-equality crowd isn't writing laws that say "gays can't marry." They're writing laws that say "men can't marry men."
 
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."

That's cool. There's someone out there who probably thinks that, morally, my mixed-race marriage isn't really marriage. So there's always going to be people out there with some opinion, and obviously I'm not going to concern myself with what those people think.
 
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."

Fine with me. Any God that petty is not worth my time.
 
In the end, sin will win. It's what this world is bound for. Legally, homosexuals should probably be able to marry. Morally, their marriage will never be "marriage."

That is your opinion and you're free to it, just like there are still people out there that think interracial marriage is a sin (one of my neighbors). Hopefully very soon, people that are against SSM just won't be able to legally enforce that view on gays.
 
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a distinction of gender. Marriage isn't sex, clownboy. The anti-equality crowd isn't writing laws that say "gays can't marry." They're writing laws that say "men can't marry men."


Men can't marry men, is equally limiting as women cannot marry women. Their gender is the limiting criterion, but, they are both equally limited based on this criteria. Now, if men could marry both men and women, and women could only marry men, then you would have an equal protection violation, but that is not the case. Homosexuals, and now polygamists are saying that the limitations, although equally limiting both genders are unfair when one of these genders prefers that of the same gender in marriage. That is a new right, one that does not exist, and the states, and their legislative bodies have full power to decide. In sum; the courts would be making law, and have been re-writing law in order to acquiesce to the homosexual crowd. What the USSC should rule, is that it has no power to write new laws, or create rights where none exist, and should strike down all previous rulings on legislative limitations on marriage and refer them back to the respective legislative branches.

THAT is how it should be ruled, IMO.

Tim-
 
Men can't marry men, is equally limiting as women cannot marry women. Their gender is the limiting criterion, but, they are both equally limited based on this criteria. Now, if men could marry both men and women, and women could only marry men, then you would have an equal protection violation, but that is not the case. Homosexuals, and now polygamists are saying that the limitations, although equally limiting both genders are unfair when one of these genders prefers that of the same gender in marriage. That is a new right, one that does not exist, and the states, and their legislative bodies have full power to decide. In sum; the courts would be making law, and have been re-writing law in order to acquiesce to the homosexual crowd. What the USSC should rule, is that it has no power to write new laws, or create rights where none exist, and should strike down all previous rulings on legislative limitations on marriage and refer them back to the respective legislative branches.

THAT is how it should be ruled, IMO.

Tim-

Men can ride on those buses and women can ride on those other buses. Men can eat in those restaurants and women can eat in those other restaurants. Men can shop in those stores and women can shop in those other stores. Same criterian, same discrimination.
 
Men can ride on those buses and women can ride on those other buses. Men can eat in those restaurants and women can eat in those other restaurants. Men can shop in those stores and women can shop in those other stores. Same criterian, same discrimination.

Yeah except that isn't case, nice try. :)

Any other fake scenarios you wish to push? ;)

Tim-
 
Yeah except that isn't case, nice try. :)

Any other fake scenarios you wish to push? ;)

Tim-

Those examples are cases that wouldn't be allowed, much like how you described. Sorry, but your side is going to rightfully lose this one. Deal with it, it is coming. I'll take a nice toast to all the anti-SSM people when it happens as well.
 
Yeah except that isn't case, nice try. :)

Any other fake scenarios you wish to push? ;)

Tim-

It may not be what is being discussed now but it is a demonstration of something that would be just as wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom